Forestluv

A 3hr video is a fairly large time investment. Is there a time range in which he makes his case against a hard/soft drug dichotomy, or was it pretty much the whole 3hr video?

Legalization and decriminalization are distinct. It sounds like you are making an argument for decriminalization more than legalization. I’m curious of the limits of your view. . . If there was a substance that gave the user 20min. of bliss, yet also caused the user to lose self control and kill people, would you say as a society we should allow that substance to be sold, bought and used? To me, it seem to boil down to a libertarian argument. That is helpful, yet the reality is that it would be insufficient due to the current conscious level of society. Harm is not restricted to the individual - certain substances like meth expand beyond the user and causes societal harm. A substance can be made illegal to market, sell and use - yet a user would not be charged as a criminal. They would be sent to a program to help them with their problems and addiction. The idea is that making the drug illegal, without criminality, would help reduce harm caused to society.

I acknowledge there are dangers in capitalists and scientists gaining toxic control of deciding what counts as true and healthy. There can be selfish biases and conflicts of interest. As you suggest, pharmaceuticals have a strong conflict of interest due to profit making desires. That is why I think higher order independent regulatory agencies are needed. Of course there will be grey areas, yet I think I am pointing to a clearer case. I think most people would agree that companies should not be marketing methamphetamine to people to try to get them addicted to maximize their profits. This is what happened in the opioid crisis and most people agreed it was wrong If we had a device that gave someone 10 minutes of pleasure and then the device broke their bones and set 20 homes on fire, I don't think it should be legal for companies to market that device and profit off of it.

I don't have the time to watch the video right now, yet interested in doing so later and will update with my impressions. Thanks.

I’m ok with decriminalizing all drugs, yet I think legalization of certain hard drugs goes too far. Allowing legal consumption, marketing, sellIng and profiting off of drugs like methamphetamine wouldn’t be good for society, imo. It’s not just the harmful impact to the individual, there is a huge social harm with meth. I’d be for decriminalizing meth, yet not legalizing it.

I like to do a 50:50 mix of 4-Aco-Dmt and 4-Ho-met to take the edge off.

An interesting twist. For hundreds of years, very light skinned black people would often try to ‘pass’ as being white. I’ve seen documentaries in which a light skinned black person leaves their family, marries a white person and creates an entire backstory why s/he has no family contact. And then one of the descendants finds out years later. I can see the motivation historically since a person could escape the effects of racism. . . It’s interesting to see it occur in the opposite direction. I’ve seen lots of falsely people claim partial heritage - like falsely claiming they are 1/8 American Indian. Yet I hadn’t seen cases of full on identification. The cases of trying to pass for a minority seem to occur more often in University that are green - there may be some benefits and cred. they seek. I doubt many people would try to pass for a minority in other environments, like an insurance salesman.

Forced Marriage is a form of rape, it’s just one step away and allows some distancing from the actual rape. If a women is forced to marry and have sex with a man against her will, that is a form of rape. Euphemizing the rape as “forced marraige” allows for some emotional distancing and justification of the rape.

She is really good at perspective jumping in this video. She goes into various psyches and pulls insights to a meta view where she makes connections. I also like how she is unpredictable and has dark humor.

@Giulio Bevilacqua If you resonate with music, you can deepen and expand with it, rather than stay with the same old. I’m in the sciences and there came a point in my development I lost interest. Science seemed so limited and unsatisfying. Yet then I expanded it to systematic levels by integrating art, psychology, anthropology, psychedelics, history etc. That spiced it up.

There is the issue of who/what counts as “enlightened“ and who/what gets to define it. Where / what is “there”? If a person hasn’t been “there” and hasn’t realized “there” how can they determine who has been “there” and who is an authority on what “there” is? Perhaps there = here!

@Red-White-Light Nice ? ?

Digging sand and creating sandcastles can be lots of fun ? ?

If I realize a beach and then say “this grain of sand is beachier than that grain of sand”, am I missing something? If I say “each grain of sand is equivalent beachiness”, am I missing something? If I say “my perception of beachness is the totality of beachness”, am I missing something? As soon as I become a grain of sand, I am missing something because as a grain of sand I am no longer other grains of sand.

Looks like Frank got a good look at the tail of the Ox, yet now believes the Ox’s tail is the Ox.

Responsibility and blame are inter-related. The term blame has a different connotation because it suggests one is avoiding taking personal responsibility. I see it as an interplay. For example, if someone breaks into my home, shoots me and I become paralyzed - I will have a new set of problems in life. In one context, I can create problems. I could have a mentality that I am a victim, I can no longer be productive in life and blame all my problems on the shooter. I could avoid taking any personal responsibility for my own mindset. Another mindset would be that I have a new productive role in life. Perhaps I can be a motivational speaker. Perhaps I can become an advocate for those with disabilities. Yet in another context, if I get shot and paralyzed by a burglar, I am also a victim of this crime. The new set of problems in my life due to hospital bills, inability to work, rehabilitation, PTSD, therapy, mental anguish etc. are due to the burglar shooting me. It’s not fair to place all the responsibility on the paralyzed person and not place any responsibility upon the shooter for the harm he caused. I see it is a combination. There is both internal and external causation that is inter-connected. In SD terms, this is the integration of Orange and Green. There is also the issue if there is personal free will in making choices. Most discussions about personal responsibility have the assumption of personal free will. That has practical value in society, yet it is an assumption that restricts from further investigation.

As repeatedly stated: If you wish to hold conservative views, that is okay, but you must articulate them with some intelligence and nuance, not as dogma or some reactionary FoxNews talking points.

According to his CV, Patton describes himself as “an expert in communication, interpersonal and leadership effectiveness”. How ironic.

Part of his stage red expression

I think it’s fair to say it is politically motivated and perhaps disingenuous. Yet I don’t think it’s fair to say it is a “political smear”. These are Trump’s own comments he has made on record or verified by multiple sources. And Trump’s attitude about the military is a legit political issue for a lot of people. It’s not like they are making up a story about him. And also consider proportionality. Yes Biden’s team is playing politically motivated games, yet brining up Trump’s own comments for 2018 is far less severe than the games Trump is playing - such as trying to undercut mail-in-voting, encouraging his supporters to vote twice etc. That is far more severe since it undermines democracy itself.

1960s conservative position: Marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race. 1960s liberal position: Marriage is between a man and a woman of any race. 2000s conservative position: Marriage is between a man and a woman of any race. 2000s liberal position: Marriage is between two adult humans of any sex or gender. 2100s conservative position: Marriage is between two adult humans of any sex of gender. 2100s liberal position: Marriage is between two conscious entities, including humans and androids. 2200s conservative position: Marriage is between two conscious entities, including humans and androids. 2200s liberal position: Marriage is between dynamic states of integrated consciousness within one holistic consciousness.

A grandiose depiction of Red Emperor Cortes conquering and indigenous tribe:

I suppose this could help Biden win and reduce an immediate threat, yet this is a huge red flag about toxic corporate plutocracy. Biden his receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from billionaires and corporate plutocrats. That money ain’t free. They will have power over him and his administration. A lot of people are under the impression that we can “go back to normal” under Biden, yet there are still serious problems with toxic neoliberalism and the fight doesn’t stop in November. I was encouraged to see AOC come out hard against Joe Kennedy III and Pelosi - that is a sign that they will continue to fight hard against neoliberalism if Biden wins.

Imagine what might influence someone to destroy things verbally and physically. Imagine someone who has been abused and silenced. Can you see how they might lash out? In my view, it is not the destroying things and physical harm that is higher consciousness. I don’t know anyone who is saying that. Rather, I would consider someone like Cornel West at a relatively high level of consciousness. He is aware of inequalities and injustices. He can see nuances about personal responsibility and corrupt systemic problems. He can see racial biases, yet can also see how poor white people are also getting screwed over in a corrupt plutocracy of extreme wealth inequality. Not everyone speaking out against inequalities and injustices is doing so by destroying things. I’m speaking out against inequalities and injustices - and I haven’t destroyed a single thing.